1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to computer networks and more particularly to dynamically splitting Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in a computer network.
2. Background Information
A computer network is a geographically distributed collection of nodes interconnected by communication links and segments for transporting data between end nodes, such as personal computers and workstations. Many types of networks are available, with the types ranging from local area networks (LANs) to wide area networks (WANs). LANs typically connect the nodes over dedicated private communications links located in the same general physical location, such as a building or campus. WANs, on the other hand, typically connect geographically dispersed nodes over long-distance communications links, such as common carrier telephone lines, optical lightpaths, synchronous optical networks (SONET), or synchronous digital hierarchy (SDH) links. The Internet is an example of a WAN that connects disparate networks throughout the world, providing global communication between nodes on various networks. The nodes typically communicate over the network by exchanging discrete frames or packets of data according to predefined protocols, such as the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP). In this context, a protocol consists of a set of rules defining how the nodes interact with each other. Computer networks may be further interconnected by an intermediate network node, such as a router, to extend the effective “size” of each network.
Since management of interconnected computer networks can prove burdensome, smaller groups of computer networks may be maintained as routing domains or autonomous systems. The networks within an autonomous system (AS) are typically coupled together by conventional “intradomain” routers configured to execute intradomain routing protocols, and are generally subject to a common authority. To improve routing scalability, a service provider (e.g., an ISP) may divide an AS into multiple “areas” or “levels.” It may be desirable, however, to increase the number of nodes capable of exchanging data; in this case, interdomain routers executing interdomain routing protocols are used to interconnect nodes of the various ASes. Moreover, it may be desirable to interconnect various ASes that are operated under different administrative domains. As used herein, an AS, area, or level is generally referred to as a “domain,” and a router that interconnects different domains together is generally referred to as a “border router.”
An example of an inter-domain routing protocol is the Border Gateway Protocol version 4 (BGP), which performs routing between domains (ASes) by exchanging routing and reachability information among neighboring inter-domain routers of the systems. An adjacency is a relationship formed between selected neighboring (peer) routers for the purpose of exchanging routing information messages and abstracting the network topology. The routing information exchanged by BGP peer routers typically includes destination address prefixes, i.e., the portions of destination addresses used by the routing protocol to render routing (“next hop”) decisions. Examples of such destination addresses include IP version 4 (IPv4) and version 6 (IPv6) addresses. BGP generally operates over a reliable transport protocol, such as TCP, to establish a TCP connection/session. The BGP protocol is well known and generally described in Request for Comments (RFC) 1771, entitled A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4), published March 1995.
Examples of an intradomain routing protocol, or an interior gateway protocol (IGP), are the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) routing protocol and the Intermediate-System-to-Intermediate-System (IS-IS) routing protocol. The OSPF and IS-IS protocols are based on link-state technology and, therefore, are commonly referred to as link-state routing protocols. Link-state protocols define the manner with which routing information and network-topology information are exchanged and processed in a domain. This information is generally directed to an intradomain router's local state (e.g., the router's usable interfaces and reachable neighbors or adjacencies). The OSPF protocol is described in RFC 2328, entitled OSPF Version 2, dated April 1998 and the IS-IS protocol used in the context of IP is described in RFC 1195, entitled Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and Dual Environments, dated December 1990, both of which are hereby incorporated by reference.
An intermediate network node often stores its routing information in a routing table maintained and managed by a routing information base (RIB). The routing table is a searchable data structure in which network addresses are mapped to their associated routing information. However, those skilled in the art will understand that the routing table need not be organized as a table, and alternatively may be another type of searchable data structure. Although the intermediate network node's routing table may be configured with a predetermined set of routing information, the node also may dynamically acquire (“learn”) network routing information as it sends and receives data packets. When a packet is received at the intermediate network node, the packet's destination address may be used to identify a routing table entry containing routing information associated with the received packet. Among other things, the packet's routing information indicates the packet's next-hop address.
To ensure that its routing table contains up-to-date routing information, the intermediate network node may cooperate with other intermediate nodes to disseminate routing information representative of the current network topology. For example, suppose the intermediate network node detects that one of its neighboring nodes (i.e., adjacent network nodes) becomes unavailable, e.g., due to a link failure or the neighboring node going “off-line,” etc. In this situation, the intermediate network node can update the routing information stored in its routing table to ensure that data packets are not routed to the unavailable network node. Furthermore, the intermediate node also may communicate this change in network topology to the other intermediate network nodes so they, too, can update their local routing tables and bypass the unavailable node. In this manner, each of the intermediate network nodes becomes “aware” of the change in topology.
Typically, routing information is disseminated among the intermediate network nodes in accordance with a predetermined network communication protocol, such as a link-state protocol (e.g., IS-IS, or OSPF). Conventional link-state protocols use link-state advertisements or link-state packets (or “IGP Advertisements”) for exchanging routing information between interconnected intermediate network nodes (IGP nodes). As used herein, an IGP Advertisement generally describes any message used by an IGP routing protocol for communicating routing information among interconnected IGP nodes, i.e., routers and switches. Operationally, a first IGP node may generate an IGP Advertisement and “flood” (i.e., transmit) the packet over each of its network interfaces coupled to other IGP nodes. Thereafter, a second IGP node may receive the flooded IGP Advertisement and update its routing table based on routing information contained in the received IGP Advertisement. Next, the second IGP node may flood the received IGP Advertisement over each of its network interfaces, except for the interface at which the IGP Advertisement was received. This flooding process may be repeated until each interconnected IGP node has received the IGP Advertisement and updated its local routing table.
In practice, each IGP node typically generates and disseminates an IGP Advertisement whose routing information includes a list of the intermediate node's neighboring network nodes and one or more “cost” values associated with each neighbor. As used herein, a cost value associated with a neighboring node is an arbitrary metric used to determine the relative ease/burden of communicating with that node. For instance, the cost value may be measured in terms of the number of hops required to reach the neighboring node, the average time for a packet to reach the neighboring node, the amount of network traffic or available bandwidth over a communication link coupled to the neighboring node, etc.
As noted, IGP Advertisements are usually flooded until each intermediate network IGP node has received an IGP Advertisement from each of the other interconnected intermediate nodes. Then, each of the IGP nodes (e.g., in a link-state protocol) can construct the same “view” of the network topology by aggregating the received lists of neighboring nodes and cost values. To that end, each IGP node may input this received routing information to a “shortest path first” (SPF) calculation that determines the lowest-cost network paths that couple the intermediate node with each of the other network nodes. For example, the Dijkstra algorithm is a conventional technique for performing such a SPF calculation, as described in more detail in Section 12.2.4 of the text book Interconnections Second Edition, by Radia Perlman, published September 1999, which is hereby incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. Each IGP node updates the routing information stored in its local routing table based on the results of its SPF calculation. More specifically, the RIB updates the routing table to correlate destination nodes with next-hop interfaces associated with the lowest-cost paths to reach those nodes, as determined by the SPF calculation.
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering has been developed to meet data networking requirements such as guaranteed available bandwidth or fast restoration. MPLS Traffic Engineering exploits modern label switching techniques to build end-to-end tunnels based on a series of constraints through an IP/MPLS network of label switched routers (LSRs). These tunnels are a type of label switched path (LSP) and thus are generally referred to as MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) LSPs. Examples of MPLS TE can be found in RFC 3209, entitled RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels dated December 2001, RFC 3784 entitled Intermediate-System-to-Intermediate-System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE) dated June 2004, and RFC 3630, entitled Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2 dated September 2003, the contents of all of which are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety.
Establishment of an MPLS TE-LSP from a head-end LSR to a tail-end LSR involves computation of a path through a network of LSRs. Optimally, the computed path is the “shortest” path, as measured in some metric, that satisfies all relevant LSP Traffic Engineering constraints such as e.g., required bandwidth, “affinities” (administrative constraints to avoid or include certain links), etc. Path computation can either be performed by the head-end LSR or by some other entity operating as a path computation element (PCE) not co-located on the head-end LSR. The head-end LSR (or a PCE) exploits its knowledge of network topology and resources available on each link to perform the path computation according to the LSP Traffic Engineering constraints. Various path computation methodologies are available including CSPF (constrained shortest path first). MPLS TE-LSPs can be configured within a single domain, e.g., area, level, or AS, or may also span multiple domains, e.g., areas, levels, or ASes.
The PCE is an entity having the capability to compute paths between any nodes of which the PCE is aware in an AS or area. PCEs are especially useful in that they are more cognizant of network traffic and path selection within their AS or area, and thus may be used for more optimal path computation. A head-end LSR may further operate as a path computation client (PCC) configured to send a path computation request to the PCE, and receive a response with the computed path, which potentially takes into consideration other path computation requests from other PCCs. It is important to note that when one PCE sends a request to another PCE, it acts as a PCC. A PCC can be informed of a PCE either by pre-configuration by an administrator, or by a PCE Discovery (PCED) message (“advertisement”), which is sent from the PCE within its area or level or across the entire AS to advertise its services.
Some applications may incorporate unidirectional data flows configured to transfer time-sensitive traffic from a source (sender) in a computer network to a destination (receiver) in the network in accordance with a certain “quality of service” (QoS). Here, network resources may be reserved for the unidirectional flow to ensure that the QoS associated with the data flow is maintained. The Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) is a network-control protocol that enables applications to reserve resources in order to obtain special QoS for their data flows. RSVP works in conjunction with routing protocols to, e.g., reserve resources for a data flow in a computer network in order to establish a level of QoS required by the data flow. RSVP is defined in R. Braden, et al., Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP), RFC 2205. In the case of traffic engineering applications, RSVP signaling is used to establish a TE-LSP and to convey various TE-LSP attributes to routers, such as border routers, along the TE-LSP obeying the set of required constraints whose path may have been computed by various means.
TE-LSP path computation algorithms, such as CSPF, have powerful properties in terms of flexibility, reactiveness, robustness, etc., and are very widely deployed in MPLS TE-enabled networks. However, there are often occasions where it may be difficult for the path computation algorithms to locate a path for the TE-LSP that satisfies the constraints of the TE-LSP, such as, e.g., bandwidth, cost, etc. For instance, a core or edge network element failure (e.g., in the absence of a forwarding adjacency) often removes a great portion of usable network topology (e.g., causing the rerouting of many TE-LSPs and possible traffic sloshing, as will be understood by those skilled in the art). Also, conventional traffic growth over time often creates increased demand and congestion over “popular” paths (e.g., shortest paths or primary paths). As a result of these and other conditions, existing TE-LSPs that reserve a certain amount of bandwidth may require resizing (either manual or dynamic) to reserve more bandwidth, i.e., to become larger TE-LSPs. Also, these conditions may require the creation of new TE-LSPs that require being sized to a certain amount of bandwidth. Often, however, the required bandwidth (or “size”) of the TE-LSP prohibits the TE-LSP from utilizing the optimal (e.g., shortest) path across the computer network, e.g., as computed by the path computation algorithm. In this case, according to one sub-optimal approach, the best available path meeting the constraints may be selected and utilized, even where that best available path may be many magnitudes worse than (e.g., longer than or costlier than) the best unconstrained path. Notably, the TE-LSP may utilize a less optimal path even in the event that the excess bandwidth is only minimally greater than that available on the best unconstrained path.
Currently, if a path computation algorithm fails altogether to place a larger TE-LSP due to its constraints, a number of sub-optimal and impractical solutions exist. For example, the constraints may be relaxed such that an available path may exist that meets the relaxed constraints. As those skilled in the art will understand, the more the constraints are relaxed, the more available paths will exist (e.g., shorter and/or more optimal paths). However, this approach is sub-optimal, in that the originally required constraints are compromised simply for the ability to place at least a portion of the larger TE-LSP. Also, for existing TE-LSPs that are unable to be sized to a larger TE-LSP, the constraints of the existing TE-LSP may remain the same, thus not satisfying the required demand. Notably, if the configuration and/or management of the TE-LSPs are manual (e.g., by a system administrator), each of the above approaches may become poorly scalable and difficult to practice. In particular, a system administrator may manually create multiple smaller TE-LSPs (e.g., ambiguously) rather than a single larger TE-LSP, but again, this approach is poorly scalable, sub-optimal, cumbersome, and ultimately impractical.